Food & Drink

I've added a bunch of stuff and reorganized part of the Drink section, putting in a British pub section. Jfnasati 23:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Westin Miyako Hotel

At a mere 116 years, is this really the oldest hotel in Kyoto? I thought I saw older ones. Gorilla Jones 00:52, 1 March 2007 (EST)

It may well be the oldest hotel, but I'm pretty sure some of the ryokan have rather more impressive pedigrees... Jpatokal 01:16, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I'm sorry,I wrote this sentence. (^^; I want to say " Miyako hotel is oldest hotel in western type hotel in Kyoto ." . In my sense,"hotel" does not contain "japanese-ryokan" . If it is better for deletion the part of sentence,"oldest" ,I will delete this part. I'don't have no idea what is better to explain "Miyako hotel". by 202.33.162.69 - 20:20, 2 March 2007 (JST)

Thanks for the explanation. I think we can mention that Miyako is the oldest Western-style hotel in Kyoto. That might be interesting for some travelers. Gorilla Jones 07:49, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Districts

Wondering if it might be appropriate to move toward district sub-pages for Kyoto, as is done for cities like Sydney and Tokyo. While perhaps not as dramatically distinct as Tokyo/Akahibara and Tokyo/Ueno, there's so much ground between Kyoto/Station Area (or Central), Kyoto/Northwest, and Kyoto/Arashiyama - and so much to do in each - that it seems worth separating them out to me. (If nothing else, it would help a traveler decide where to base themselves.) Obviously, I'd be willing to help fill the resulting sub-pages. Gorilla Jones 03:12, 11 February 2007 (EST)

Yeah, I think it's a matter of time, but as it stands I'm not sure the Kyoto article is long enough to warrant splitting? Jpatokal 07:06, 11 February 2007 (EST)

I think it's a tad unwieldly at present, and a couple sections - especially Arashiyama - still have a fair amount more that could be added. (Would be nice to add more eat & drink listings, too, but I didn't eat out much when I lived there.) There are also a few places (like Mount Hiei and Kurama) that could as easily be listed under Kyoto but already have their own pages. Gorilla Jones 06:50, 12 February 2007 (EST)

Is Kyoto still too sparse for districting? There is enough information about this city out there that I'm thinking it could make a good nomination for Collaboration of the Month, but I wouldn't want to nominate it prior to districting... ChubbyWimbus 11:43, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

I think it's district-able, as long as it's not broken into too many pieces - something like north, south, west, east, and central. I am concerned about the number of empty listings (name only) currently in the article, though. Gorilla Jones 14:54, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

Other than the "See" section, I'm not sure if there's enough material for a full set of districts. Eat, in particular, is fairly sparse, and 95% of Sleep would end up in either north or central.

I've been thinking - for See, might it make sense to create subheadings for the major attractions in an area (about a full day's worth of sightseeing) and then one for secondary sights? "If you have more than one day in this area, consider...." That might help organize See more effectively without splitting the article. - Dguillaime 16:19, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

Gorilla Jones: I added most (maybe all?) of the name-only listings. Although I agree their presence makes the page look sloppy right now, I decided added them was a good way to highlight the work that still needs done to make this a good Kyoto guide. The additions are not so obscure (at least most of them). I also had hoped that, because it is so noticeable, people would add the information. I have been to most of the places that I added, although it would take me a while to fill them all in. It's a slow process... ChubbyWimbus 08:16, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

I'm in favour of districting - perhaps not immediately, but it may be time to start laying the groundwork. Some sections still require some fleshing out, but the article as a whole is getting too long and unwieldy to stand as a single readable unit. (Here I speak from experience; I was in Kyoto recently and I used this article when planning my stay in the city.) Scrolling through the Sleep section already seems like a confusing chore, especially for users who might want to consider accommodation options by location and not just by price range. I also think we have enough material under See to get the splitting process started.

ChubbyWimbus: (re: name-only listings) I'll do what I can to help. I've only been to the major sights and most of those are already filled in, but if I see anything I can add to I'll jump straight in. --Diego de Manila 05:28, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

Defining Districts

Even though there seems to be no firm consensus on the matter of splitting up Kyoto, I think we should at least start work on defining districts and setting up a hierarchy. (In any case, we're probably all/mostly agreed on the need for districting; the remaining point of contention is whether we should start now or wait until more information is added to certain sections.) Once the borders are laid, shifting entries off to district sub-pages should be a manageable task.

I propose that we start by defining Central Kyoto, and then use that as a reference point for the other districts. My suggestion is to use the Kamo River as the eastern boundary and the Kyoto Station area as the southern boundary for Central Kyoto; perhaps contributors with better local knowledge can propose the northern and western lines. --Diego de Manila 21:02, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

I'm in favor of districting, but I don't know Kyoto well enough to be able to contribute much to this discussion. However, the existing split in See (Northwest, West, Central, Northeast, East, Southeast, Southwest) seems broadly workable, although it would be good to give at least a few of those actual names, eg. Arashiyama for "West". Jpatokal 00:45, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

Yes, Arashiyama would be an obvious district name for what is now "Western Kyoto". As for the others, most of them don't have officially designated areas. The travel maps handed out at Kyoto Station, for example, divide them by areas, so they call our Northwest Kyoto "Kinkakuji Area". I don't really like that for our guides, though. The only other areas that do have names are those on the outer edges. I've already stated the names of the two areas in Southwestern Kyoto, which are "Oharano area" and the "Matsuo area". The Southeastern part is also made up of two areas: Fushimi and Daigo. In the Northeast there is the Ohara area, and in the northwest there is Takao.

I think separating those regions would be too much, though. I kind of like the directional markers for the links (with Arashiyama as the exception) and then dividing the named regions on their page, (like what is done here with all of the regions). I don't know food or hotels, but I know many of the attractions quite well, and this split gives still leaves each region with a good amount of places to see and things to do. I hope what I'm saying makes sense. I'm a bit tired now. Feel free to ask for clarification if this reads like senseless rambling. ChubbyWimbus 11:25, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

I tend to agree, if I understand you correctly. Better to keep fewer, longer articles rather than a panoply of short ones. Perhaps a five-way split, Central and the four cardinal directions? The existing Eastern section might incorporate a few of the entries in NE depending on where the line gets drawn, and SE/SW each have a small enough number of entries (and even fewer must see sights) that they could be merged without much trouble. - Dguillaime 13:19, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

I'm in favor of a five-way split using 'Central' and the four cardinal directions (or 'Arashiyama' for 'Western'). If names are desired, though, it's not unprecedented to call the article by the best known are encompassed therein — such as how Chicago/Hyde Park is called "Hyde Park", but also includes the Kenwood neighborhood. Gorilla Jones 13:35, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

I agree with the major proposals put forward so far: five-way split, Central + cardinal directions; using the name "Arashiyama" for the western district (and possibly, as Gorilla Jones suggests, using distinctive names for the others as well); limiting the number of sub-pages.

Another challenge is deciding where one district ends and another begins. We probably don't need to pin them down to the last street or canal border (that would be too restrictive, and in any case some minor overlaps are probably inevitable); all we need is a system precise enough so that all major attractions fall under one district sub-page or another.

For Central Kyoto, I'll reiterate my earlier suggestion: eastern boundary = Kamo River; southern boundary = Kyoto Station area (not necessarily the station itself, more like the immediate neighbourhood). Any recommendations for the northern and western boundaries?

Once we've got Central pinned down, we can use that as a guide for the other districts. --Diego de Manila 20:14, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

I wish I hadn't given away my maps! For the southern boundary of the Central district, I'd like to include the hotels that are still within a few minutes walking distance of Kyoto Station by pushing that border down to Kujō-dori. Keeping the divisions roughly as they are now would put the northern border just beyond the Imperial Palace, which would be Imadegawa-dori. On the west, perhaps Nishiōji? Maybe even a little further out, is there any convenient north-south boundary line around JR Hanazono? - Dguillaime 20:40, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

I think Imadegawa-dori is definitely the best northern border for the Central area. It's a major road, and it cuts clean across from the East to the West. Nishioji does the same from North to South on the western side, so it seems like an easy split that way. Actually, although I'm pretty sure these roads are the markers used by Kyoto's tourism maps/books, although none of them explicitly state it.

One question: Are you suggesting making Kyoto Station part of the South? To me it makes more sense being part of the Central region (perhaps along with Toji Temple), since much of the Central area is in easy walking distance of the station. The station is fairly removed from any of the other attractions in the southern areas, which are basically all in the southeast and southwest. ChubbyWimbus 11:58, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

No, but I see how it was confusingly phrased at first. Clarified above. - Dguillaime 13:02, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

Imadegawa-dori is a good northern border, and the Kamogawa works for me at the east. Gorilla Jones 13:04, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

Based on the comments made to date, I think we can tentatively propose the following boundaries for Central Kyoto:

North - Imadegawa-dōri

South - Kujō-dōri

West - Nishiōji-dōri

East - Kamo-gawa

I don't mind pushing the western boundary a little further to JR Hanazono, as Dguillaime suggests - the only problem is that I've looked at three different maps and can't find a clean north-south boundary marker for that area. If we agree to move the border that far, we can simply work with an imaginary line running north-south through Hanazono. Another option would be to use the motorway a little to the west of Hanazono (#162, according to Google Maps and a travel map I consulted). --Diego de Manila 23:06, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

I like the boundaries you've listed. If you move the western border, Myoshinji will become part of the Central area, but I think it really belongs in the West. Your list as it is really eliminates any grey areas about where specific destinations should be placed. If that is the Central area, then all we need to decide is where the East/West becomes North/South. On the East, do you want to continue to use Imadegawa-dori? I think it would work until it intersects Shirakawa-dori (which would be the other border distinguishing North from East). I say this simply because I think Ginkakuji should not be separated from the rest of the Philosopher's Path. ChubbyWimbus 08:23, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

Indeed, and what about sights like Shugakuindake (North or East) or even more tricky Hiei-san, is that in North, East or even in Shiga prefecture? --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 09:17, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

If we don't have a "Northeast" area, then Shugakuin must be part of the North. As for Hieizan, although many guidebooks like to place it in Kyoto, it is in Shiga. Hieizan and the Enryakuji Temple complex are all part of Otsu. ChubbyWimbus 09:33, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

@ChubbyWimbus: I agree, Ginkakuji should be classed together with the sights in/near the Philosopher's Path. Beyond that, my knowledge of that part of Kyoto is a little sparse, so I can't comment extensively on the border between north and east. Imadegawa-dōri makes for a nice, clean break, though - and it's consistent with the northern boundary for Central - so it makes sense to keep using it.

@Everyone: At this point, it looks like we've reached a good consensus on the boundaries of Central Kyoto. I'll add a separate subheading below for the boundaries that contributors on this Talk page have more or less agreed on; this should make it easier to keep track of things. Discussions are by no means closed, of course - please feel free to keep voicing concerns/suggestions/objections, or indicate your support so that we can determine if a firm consensus has been reached. --Diego de Manila 03:32, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

Let's start working on the boundaries for Eastern Kyoto. In all likelihood, the western boundary will be Kamo-gawa (consistent with Central Kyoto's eastern boundary). Any suggestions for the northern and southern borders? Please feel free to reiterate any comments/proposals you may have already made, especially if they've gotten buried somewhere in our main discussions on Central Kyoto. --Diego de Manila 22:25, 28 May 2009 (EDT)

I think we can get the remainder more or less automatically by looking at the existing breakdown of attractions and picking a convenient-looking line between them. For the northwestern edge of the area, the big question is which tributary of the river to go up; I'd say use the Takano as the boundary. Towards the south, it just needs to keep Sanjūsangendō on one side and Tofuku-ji on the other, which offers plenty of flexibility. The Tōkaidō Line tracks look good and are always easy to find on a map, and that even gets Tofuku-ji Station (which is some distance northwest from the actual temple) into South. - Dguillaime 01:32, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

For the boundary between North and East, I think Imadegawa-dori is actually okay. Although Ginkakuji Temple straddles the area where the road ends, we can just put it in the East and leave it at that. I don't think there are any hotels or other attractions beyond that. The Tokaido Line seems reasonable to me for the East-South Border but not on the West-South border. I don't have a map that shows the streets that separate Arashiyama from the Matsuo area. Wherever that is, that's where the border should be... ChubbyWimbus 12:52, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

I'm fine with using the Tokaido Line as Eastern Kyoto's southern border. As Dguillaime pointed out, it's real easy to spot on a map - I have two maps in front of me right now and the railway line makes a very convenient boundary marker. On the other hand, I agree with ChubbyWimbus about not using it as the West-South border, mainly because it dips too far south after crossing Katsura-gawa. Shijō-dōri doesn't project far beyond Katsura-gawa, but if we extend it westwards as an imaginary line I think it could make a good West-South border. That puts all of Arashiyama in the west and everything from Matsumuro/Matsuo down in the south.

I don't know enough about the northeast to make any firm suggestions, but Imadegawa-dōri seems like a convenient and easy-to-spot border. --Diego de Manila 02:22, 6 June 2009 (EDT)

I've added it to the tentative boundaries list (below). With three sides of Eastern Kyoto more or less settled, I've plotted out the tentative boundaries on the districtification project map [1] (orange line). The North/East border follows Imadegawa-dōri for the most part, but I've kinked it slightly to the north towards the end to keep Ginkaku-ji in the East. --Diego de Manila 21:21, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

Now that the district boundaries of Central Kyoto are more or less agreed, perhaps we can start work on setting up a district sub-page for that area and moving entries off the main city page. My view is that transferring information for even just this district can already lead to an improvement in the usability of the main city page by reducing the amount of text that users need to process in one go. We can highlight the ongoing districtification effort by adding a new Districts section, and we can insert temporary redirect boxes in each section alerting users to the fact that information relevant to Central Kyoto has been transferred to a different page (as well as advising them to put fresh contributions in the appropriate page). --Diego de Manila 07:26, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

I think for the border between North and West, it should drop to Marutamachi-dori (from the Imadegawa-dori) in order to include Myoshinji in the North. It can't follow Marutamachi-dori to the end, because that would cut Arashiyama, but what if it was that street directly on the eastern side of Hirosawa Lake? (sorry, my map doesn't list its name...) If you go ahead with the beginning of the distrification, I'll help move things. ChubbyWimbus 19:50, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

It's not directly on the east side of the lake, but is Yamago-dori the street you're thinking of? There's also route 162, much bigger but further east (at least a kilometer from the lake). - Dguillaime 22:23, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

Oh, wait. I guess I meant to say the Western side. Sorry about that! If the roads on the East that you mentioned work well, that would be fine. Basically, I just want to make sure that Daikakuji and other places that are clearly part of Arashiyama are still in Arashiyama after we district them. I am not exactly sure if there is a road or something that we could use to keep Otagi Nenbutsuji a part of Arashiyama/the West as well, but aside from the Takao area (which would be in the North), I don't think there is much near Otagi Nenbutsuji to warrant a great debate, unless specific roads are absolutely necessary to find. ChubbyWimbus 23:07, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

If we use Marutamachi-dōri as far west as route 162, and then route 162 the rest of the way, that puts Myōshinji comfortably within Northern territory. We can keep Otagi Nenbutsu-ji inside the West by using either the Kiyotaki River (natural boundary) or the Arashiyama Takao Parkway (easy-to-spot artificial boundary) as the border on the Takao side.

In summary: possible boundary between North and West = Marutamachi-dōri as far as route 162, then route 162 as far as the river/parkway, then the river/parkway as far as we need it to go. --Diego de Manila 08:49, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

I think that would work great! My maps are not going as far out on this region as our boundaries are labeled, so I'm glad you've found better sources! I guess you can decide whether the river or road makes a better boundary. Do they both leave the Takao section in the North? Anyways, it looks like we've almost got this all sorted! ChubbyWimbus 15:59, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

The three major Takao-area temples are more comfortably Northern if we use the parkway instead of the river. There's also the parkway's added advantage of being easier to spot on a map.

To help us visualise the boundaries currently under discussion, I've started plotting them on a Google Maps template [2]. Blue is Central Kyoto; red is the tentative boundary between Western Kyoto (Arashiyama) and Northern Kyoto. --Diego de Manila 07:45, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

For the border between Western Kyoto and Southern Kyoto: Based on ChubbyWimbus' recommendation from 03 June ("I don't have a map that shows the streets that separate Arashiyama from the Matsuo area. Wherever that is, that's where the border should be."), we can use Shijō-dōri as far as Katsura-gawa, and then just keep projecting it westwards as a straight imaginary line. This puts Matsunoo-taisha just within Southern territory. Alternatively, we can push the border a little further south, to Gojō-dōri - but this would put some of the Matsuo area (including Matsunoo-taisha) in the West.

Incidentally, we seem to be nearing the end of our district definition project! Once we've fixed West and East, that's pretty much it. North and South are simply everything that fall outside Western, Central and Eastern Kyoto so defining their boundaries (apart from establishing the outer city limits for the Kyoto article as whole) probably isn't a mission-critical task. --Diego de Manila 21:46, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

Although in my head, Umenomiya Shrine should be in the Matsuo area, since it's not far from Matsuo Shrine, I can't see a logical way to make that divide, so perhaps it is best to go with Shijo-dori, as you suggested. With that, it seems that we are ready to actually make the districts and move attractions... Am I right, or are there still loose ends? ChubbyWimbus 22:11, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

That's pretty much it, I suppose. Although it would be nice if a few other people weighed in with their thoughts so that we can polish up the agreed boundaries, I see no reason to put off starting Central Kyoto since the borders for that bit are already nicely and logically defined.

As for Umenomiya, you're right - using Shijō-dōri would separate it from the Matsuo area. The only solution would be to kink up the border around that area to take it into the south, but that's pushing things. Do you think we could get away with pushing the West/South divide down to Gojō-dōri instead, which puts Matsuo in the West rather than the South? It makes sense geographically, since that part of Kyoto looks more western than southern on a map, although the overall character of the area seems way different from Arashiyama (the "core" West, if we can call it that). We can get around that by making a subdivision within the Western Kyoto district page: one for Arashiyama and another for the rest of the district. --Diego de Manila 23:08, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

I agree that another opinion would be nice. I suppose that wouldn't be such a bad idea. Looking at this map [3], that would keep a clean-cut line between the Matsuo area and the Oharano area further south. As you said, having a "Matsuo area" sub-category would still allow for the distinction to be made (and probably allow us to take the liberty of just putting Umenomiya Shrine in the Matsuo area). The Matsuo area could go either way and I'd be okay with it. ChubbyWimbus 23:30, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

As one of the "few other people" from earlier discussions: I don't know that area of Kyoto at all, I'm afraid, and can't contribute intelligently. If the two of you are the only ones contributing here that do have a feel for the area, please don't hesitate to move forward! Either way, I'd still be in favor of calling the article 'Arashiyama' if that's the large majority of it. - Dguillaime 01:21, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

I've updated the map[4]. If everything looks all right, I guess we're ready to start!

I'm afraid I have no experience in setting up a new district sub-page, so I think I should leave that to someone who does. Rest assured, once the sub-pages are up I'll gladly help out with moving and editing entries, as well as adding pictures for the new district guides.

Is there a notice template we can use to alert users that a districtification effort is under way? --Diego de Manila 23:49, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

{{districtify}} at the top of sections, and {{printDistricts}} for the reminder at the top. Come to think of it, there's also a template for "districting discussion in progress", which I will add momentarily. Better late than never! - Dguillaime 01:02, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

As for page creation: start editing a page with the desired name and throw in the appropriate article template, then start moving. To kick things off, I just created a bare-bones Kyoto/East. - Dguillaime 22:53, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

Just one more thing before we lay down the West/South divide. Does the Katsura Imperial Villa fit better in the West or in the South? The boundaries as currently proposed put it in Southern territory - but looking at its position on a map, it seems like it could also work (perhaps better) as a Western attraction. --Diego de Manila 08:31, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

Previously, I would have said Katsura Imperial Villa goes in the South, and although it's not technically part of the Matsuo area, it is close. If you don't want that bottlneck/fan-affect in the West, we could move it into the West. That would be okay, and then I guess we'd place it in the Matsuo area? If it stays in the south, that's okay, too. Do you prefer it to be in the West? ChubbyWimbus 23:58, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

Actually, since the East-South border is the only one with discussion, I'll create the Kyoto/North page. As for the South, although neither of us having strong opinions, it seems we have a passive agreeance that the border should be moved down slightly to incorporate Katsura Imperial Villa. If we make Shichijo-dori the border, would it keep Katsura Station with Katsura Villa? It would be strange to separate the station from the areas most famous attraction. ChubbyWimbus 14:06, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

We'll probably need to push the boundary down to Hachijō-dōri in order to accommodate Katsura Imperial Villa, and even then Katsura Station would be left out. But not by much, and in any case it's no different from the Imperial Palace being in Central even though the nearest station (Imadegawa) is just over the border - across the street, in fact - in the North.

My inclination at present is to put it in the West, for the reasons stated earlier and also because it's almost parallel with Kyoto Station (in Central). But I don't know that neighbourhood very well, so if the character of the area fits better with the South then I'm all for leaving it in the South (cartographic considerations notwithstanding). --Diego de Manila 03:02, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

I've started a "Districts" subsection on the main city guide. I was logged out for some reason (a technical glitch I've observed from time to time) so it appears as an anonymous contribution. --Diego de Manila 05:40, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Ah yes, Hachi-jo is perfect and perhaps what I meant to say (certainly what I should have said!). It aligns well with the Eastern border, and if we take the road down that dip to make it end at the same point that the current map ends at (Route 9), it would actually include the station in with the villa. I think this is perfect. If you adjust your map, I think we can finally finish creating the other two areas. ChubbyWimbus 12:38, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Does that still count as Arashiyama? I'd kind of like to stick with the most common (and most readily searched) name for the area, which can plausibly include Matsuo, but I simply don't know its approximate boundaries in the direction of the villa. - Dguillaime 16:33, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

The villa is not in Arashiyama. There isn't much around Katsura Station aside from the villa, actually. I've never really seen the villa grouped into any region, although most likely "Katsura" itself is what the Japanese call that area. Most of what I've read either just list the address or they give the impression that it's far removed from the rest of Kyoto's attractions. Most guides don't even really give mention to the Matsuo area, although there seems to be a tendency to make it seem as though it's in the south. When one looks at a map of the city wide enough to include these areas though, it is visibly in the West. The Katsura Imperial Villa is not technically part of the Matsuo area, but nor is it part of the Oharano area, so I feel like we could place it in either the West or the South and it would not be a problem. If you have strong feelings about where the villa should go OR want to rethink the placement of the Matsuo area, feel free to voice them. Perhaps the map got lost in the discussion, so I'll copy and paste it again here [5]. Take a look at it, and if you want to move the border or if you are against moving it down to include Katsura Villa, let us know! ChubbyWimbus 17:02, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

I checked several maps (including three I brought home from Kyoto itself) and a couple of guidebooks. As ChubbyWimbus pointed out, the Katsura Imperial Villa is hard to pigeonhole into any specific region: it just floats there on its own, like a little island in a relatively landmark-bare part of the city. On a map, it's clearly more Western than Southern (although, at a stretch, it might even pass as Central - knotty problem!), but it's so far removed from Arashiyama that if we were to put it in the West, calling that district Arashiyama would seem like a misnomer.

I agree with Dguillaime that Arashiyama is the core of the West, and that it should be given due prominence, but short of creating another district page just for the Matsuo and Katsura areas of the West (not enough sights, eats, sleeps and so on to justify the effort) the only remedies I can think of are:

Reassign them to Central.

Reassign them to the South.

Leave them in the main city page, similar to how two guidebooks I've seen have treated them (part of a "Greater Kyoto" or sights "Further Afield").

We could also consider naming the Western district "Arashiyama and the West", and then - as previously discussed - create sub-divisions within the district page to sort attractions between (a) Arashiyama and (b) everything else. (To balance out the names, we might also consider naming the Eastern district "Higashiyama and the East", or just plain "Higashiyama".) --Diego de Manila 17:53, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

I don't think putting Katsura Villa in Arashiyama is a problem. From a practical perspective, one of the most prominent ways to get to Arashiyama from central Kyoto is the small Hankyu Arashiyama Line, which originates from Katsura. I used to work in Katsura — plenty of Arashiyama residents consider it part of their area.

Also, it's fine to name a district article after the most prominent section therein; note how Chicago/Hyde Park also includes Kenwood, or Singapore/Bugis includes Kampong Glam, neither of which are included in the article's name. The best and simplest name is Kyoto/Arashiyama. Gorilla Jones 18:43, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

I definitely oppose putting them in the Central region (our central region is clean-cut and consistent with other guides) and leaving any sites on the main page (it looks sloppy; as if we gave up on trying to make sensible districts). I don't mind calling it Arashiyama and having a Matsuo sub-category. Hachi-jo down to Route 9 is a nice border, I think. The name is not that important to me, because the Arashiyama area will be identified regardless. If we call the region Arashiyama, then I would support renaming the East "Higashiyama", because that is basically what our east is (Tofukuji is technically in Higashiyama, but even Japanese tourists tend to view it as separate) ChubbyWimbus 18:59, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Looks like that's settled, then: Katsura goes into the West, and the West-South boundary moves down to Hachijō-dōri/#142 until it joins with #9. I'll update the map[6] for easy reference and we can proceed with the districtification effort based on the borders discussed so far.

Are we also agreed on using Arashiyama for the West and Higashiyama for the East? --Diego de Manila 21:21, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Proposed District Boundaries (as tentatively agreed by contributors)

Note: For ease of reference, please list any proposed borders with at least some community support here. The listed boundaries are not necessarily final. Kindly sign off on changes so that everyone can keep track.

The largest wooden structure

It is said in the article that "The majestic main hall of Higashi Honganji, said to be the largest wooden structure in the world". However, I thought that Todaiji in Nara is the largest, and actually in the Nara article it is stated that Todaiji would also be the largest. -- 195.74.26.195 05:49, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

I've seen the "largest in the world" claim made about both places. If we want to choose one, I'd go with Todai-ji, especially since Higashi Hongan-ji is covered up and under renovation for the next few years. Gorilla Jones 15:29, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

I don't think renovations is a viable reason to say one is bigger than the other. If Higashi Honganji is bigger, then you can't just change the facts just because it's not currently visible however, there are more sources that state Todaiji is bigger (although I've also read that Todaiji is smaller than it once was, so perhaps the downsize changes things? ChubbyWimbus 01:07, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Just call it "one of the largest". End of problem. Jpatokal 02:53, 24 February 2009 (EST)

...

uso! the train from osaka to kyoto costs 390 yen, not 540 yen!

Depends on which of the many lines you take. Jpatokal 06:14, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Bus number

Wouldn't it be nice, if the bus number is given for each temple. For example: kiyomizu temple , bus 80,202,206,207

Intro

I didn't write it, but since there have been a couple of recent attempts to soften it, I'm standing up for the intro to this article:

Kyōto (京都) [7] was the capital of Japan for over a millennium, and carries a reputation as its most beautiful city. However, visitors may be surprised by how much work they will have to do to see Kyoto's beautiful side: the area around the ultra-modern glass-and-steel train station is covered in urban sprawl, and its beauty is mostly hidden away in the temples and parks which ring the city center.

I love Kyoto, but the area around Kyoto Station is butt-ugly. Karasuma is fine, although it's certainly not what visitors have been led to expect from Kyoto. However, hang a right from the station, heading towards the Kamogawa, and there are blocks of rotting, miserable aluminum shacks before you hit your first pretty old machiya. The intro has it right. Gorilla Jones 19:12, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

To quibble—how much work does it really entail to get away from the train station? As I remember it, I walked out of the station and immediately hopped on a bus, got a day pass, and got around to wherever I wanted very easily. And my impression of Kyoto, granted only for two days, was that of a singularly beautiful city. --PeterTalk 20:39, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Well jumping on a bus, and reach the foot of the hills surrounding town is pretty much all it takes, I concur with Jani and Marc though - it's not pretty - and the fact that they to this day, continue to level the historic wooden buildings, and replace them with bland concrete cubicles should get someone executed. It's staggering how they managed to destroy one the most beautiful cities in the world, in the space of 50 years (nope, wasn't the Americans, they did it all by themselves in their ruthless quest for modernisation), for a people so well viced in esthetiques, I still can't quite grasp how they can not see it --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 20:52, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Yup. I think the reason this needs to be emphasized is that because most people have this preconception of Kyoto as looking like this, when it actually looks like this. Telling people that they'll see machiya and geisha buying Slurpees in the 7-11 right after they get off the Shinkansen will just lead them to conclude that Wikitravel's wrong about everything else as well.

Incidentally, Nara is much more pleasant right out the station, and I'm tempted to tell people short on time to ignore Kyoto completely and go there instead... Jpatokal 22:22, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Also, I suspect the impact might be much greater on Europeans, as we are so used to superbly preserved historic cities, that we expect cities like Kyoto to be the same. Kyoto requires time and patience to get it's rewards, which indeed are great --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 22:50, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Subway

The image showing the subway and train lines seems to have the Karasuma subway line and Tozai [8] subway line flipped. Not sure how to fix it. 99.226.38.5 17:14, 20 May 2009 (EDT)